resolve_authority

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Compute' and lists return values, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether any permissions are required, how it handles invalid scopes or unknown agents, or whether it has side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element is substantive: the verb, the subject, the scope qualifier, and the list of return values.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining return values, and it does list them. However, it omits behavioral context (side effects/errors) and does not mention the required principalId parameter's role in the computation, making it merely adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains all three parameters. The description adds no additional param-level detail beyond the phrase 'agent in a given scope,' which maps to agentId and scope but does not clarify principalId's role.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Compute') and clearly identifies the resource/outputs ('effective reputation score and authority tier', plus autonomy level, spend limit, and effective score). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing the computed effective score and scope-specific authority details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent's effective reputation score and authority tier in a given scope are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as when to use check_tier or evaluate_threshold instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.